But the Trump team differs not only from that of George W. Bush, but also from the teams of Presidents George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan or, for that matter, Gerald Ford, Richard M. Nixon or Dwight D. Eisenhower. Those teams included people with experience at the top or second levels of the cabinet and national-security apparatus in previous administrations. The Trump team has none.


It’s not just their lack of experience that will make for an unstable foreign policy ship. Mr. Trump has, perhaps by design, chosen people who do not know one another, and appear to disagree in personality and worldview.


But Reagan was a leader who set foreign policy goals and used his advisers’ creative tension to move the country toward them. By most accounts, Mr. Trump has operated with a different style; he seems to prefer letting his inner circle fight it out, after which he picks and advocates for the winner. This may work well in the business world, where the metrics of success are more or less straightforward. In foreign policy, though, the goal posts don’t just move — when an administration begins, they don’t even exist. It’s up to the president to decide where and how his team should advance. If Mr. Trump doesn’t, then his team of rivals and outsiders will quickly devolve into a battle royal.

So, what will Putin do with his oil money? Give it to the poor in Russia? Ha ha

One could argue that even during the 'cold war', Russia was spending its military budget on defending itself against what it saw as a 'threat', America, rather than increasing its 'military might' in order to invade, or inflict its will, on countries that are incapable of defending themselves against such a power.

Like Putin or hate him, I personally think that the guys has 'balls', he's resolute, (yet not beyond embracing compromise or reason when necessary), and in general, he's not exactly a bad bloke.

The fact that Trump and Putin have secured a $5Billion oil deal simply HAS to make many 'everyday common working men' sleep a tad more soundly in their beds.

As I see it, the biggest 'problem' with Trump is that he's not predictable. Certainly not as predictable as Hilary would have been.

It's his unpredictability that's causing unrest, nothing else.

Just a small update: Her lead is now 2.8 million votes.

There is an article on Fortune.com that provides some answers (link below). I did not have the courage to read all of it, but the first part seems well written.
Snif!

I think the bottom line is: Middle-aged white men CANNOT accept to see a women in power. They
prefer to elect an anomaly like trump, they would have voted for a dog.

The majority of college educated white women voted for Trump. That is astounding to me.
I can only hope that these women voted against Hillary as an individual whom they abhorred even more than they were disgusted by Trump.

There's a lot to be said about what you have written, however, I say this:-

1. If the Republicans and Diplomats are only able to offer the American people a choice between a Catastrophe and a Disaster, who can blame the people for voting for the Disaster?

2. People voted for Trump simply because they have a good idea what Hilary's hidden agenda is, and they didn't want her running the country. As another poster said, Bernie would have been a better option, and, IMHO, would most probably have beaten Trump to the 'big chair'

3. The CIA reckon they now have 'conclusive proof' that Putin was involved in hacking the election by using Hilary's e-mails. So who is guilty? Is Hilary guilty for her e-mails, or is Russia guilty for essentially 'outing the truth'? The problem with the US government is that everything appears 'fine' when THEY are doing the manipulating, yet when they themselves feel manipulated, Oh, terror of terrors. I've said before that the strange thing about irony is the fact it's ironic.

4. Since becoming President Elect, Trump has already committed enough 'crimes' to get himself impeached even before he's inaugurated. That said, his $5Billion oil-deal with Putin is likely to keep Russia 'at bay' for at least the time being.

As Pigsy said, I'm not an American citizen so I have no vote, but had I been, I would definitely have voted for Trump, not because I like Trump or favour him, but because he's NOT Hilary ! I also think that these same sentiments were prevalent in the minds of the American people, which is why Trump got elected.

Just MHO.

Silverboy, Foxy, Taffy: Mark my word. In 6 months, you will pretend that you were never elated by Trump's election. I will remind you that you and the people who voted for him, that you are morally responsible for the mess that is going to happen. You might not care - chances are you will not care, busy with wine and, some of you, women. But I will remind you.

Pax Americana is over. It had a good run. A Putin-Trump alliance at the service of the butcher Assad — combined with the undoing of the military alliances, trade pacts, political integration and legal framework of the postwar order — constitutes its death knell.


Maybe everything will work out fine with a nuclear South Korea, a nuclear Japan, Baltic States exposed to the whims of Putin, the United States Embassy moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a flimsy NATO abjured by America, and swaggering Texan oil men running things while Trump takes time off in New York.


Who knows? Markets think they do. They love Trump. That’s because Trump believes big guys should take everything and little guys should take nothing.
But wasn’t it the little guys who voted for Trump? That’s funny, really it is. Or as he would put it, “Sad.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/opinion/trumps-chinese-foreign-policy.html

Return to Index › Pax Americana Is Over